To the editor

For the benefit of your readers, I hope that the technical analysis in your publication is superior to your editorial on the impact of Greenpeace's activities on biotechnology companies (Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 1015, 2000). The idea that the poor employment prospects of Ecogen's staff are somehow caused by the rejection of agricultural biotechnology by a hysterical and irrational public is, frankly, ludicrous. In Europe, and increasingly in the United States, consumers and citizens are justifiably angry at being characterized as gullible fools hexed by “eco-pagans.” Those consumers rejecting GM technology are making sophisticated judgments based on their own knowledge and intuition, rather than accepting the bland assurances of the advocates of the technology. The absolute exclusion of the public from any participation in the decisions about the deployment of the technology no doubt forms a large part of the growing rejection of biotechnology. Ecogen's biggest problem is not opposition by Greenpeace or other activists, but rather its acquisition by Monsanto, the most bullish of biotech's corporate advocates. Indeed, Ecogen's downward slide, from 1996 to December 1999, significantly predates the verdict concerning the Lyng action on 20 September 2000. Being dropped from the Nasdaq is not a consequence of effective campaigning by concerned citizens and activists, but rather a confirmation by the market that to be successful, biotechnology companies will need to produce identifiable benefits for customers and the environment, and not just the companies flogging their products.